|
自己觉得写的中规中矩。请教fish版主两个问题： 1、XDF老师说开头描述一下argument原文，直接摘用原文的原话描述一下就可以，但是不能偏不能漏。第一段，我把这个原文几乎复述了一下，应该不会漏了，不过好像有点太臃肿，这样回扣份吗？ 2、问题标明在文章里了 The following appeared in a memo from the vice president in charge of fundraising at Waymarsh University: “Three years ago, as part of a very successful campaign to increase the amount of money donated for scholarships, Sophia College used student volunteers to telephone selected alumni and request contributions. That year the total amount of money donated to Sophia exceeded its annual goal by 150%. To reduce overhead costs for fundraising and increase contributions, Waymarsh University should begin using student volunteers to make telephone requests in all our fundraising efforts. Furthermore, since the enrollment at Waymarsh University is more than twice that at Sophia College, we should be able to raise at least as much money each year as Sophia did by using this same method.”
In the argument, the author recommends that to reduce overhead costs for fundraising and increase contributions, the Waymarsh University should begin using student volunteers to make telephone requests in all fundraising efforts. To justify the argument, the author cites that three years ago, as part of a very successful campaign to increase the amount of money donated for scholarship, Sophia College used student volunteers to telephone selected alumni and request contributions and the total amount of money donated to Sophia exceeded its annual goal by 150%. Further, the author claims that since the enrollment at Waymarsh University is more than twice that at Sophia College, the University should be able to raise at least as much money each year as Sophia did by using this same method. However, the reasoning in this argument is problematic in several respects. First, the author assumes that the fact that Sophia College used student volunteers to telephone selected alumni and request contributions alone has caused the increased total amount of money donated to Sophia. But, the author overlooked other factors may have contributed to the results. Possibly, the recent expanding economy bring a plenty of profits to each company, so some managers have excess money to grant the Sophia College financial aids. Because the author ignores other explanations for the increased total donated money, the argument is not very convincing and persuasive. Second, the author implies that the method works for Sophia College will also works for Waymarsh University. However, no evidence is offered that this is the case. Even if the new method raised the total amount of donated money for Sophia College, it is possible that because few alumni of Waymarsh University have earned success in business, little money would be received from the alumni of Waymarsh University. To substantiate the argument, the author must provide information to prove that Waymarsh University and Sophia College are sufficiently similar to guarantee the analogy between them.(这句是后来补上的，原来是想写，但是忘了，感觉有这句话逻辑才完整。想问问版主：如果考场上真的忘了，后果会很严重吗？）
Third, the author claims that Waymarsh University should be able to raise at least as much money each year as Sophia did by using this same method. The only reason offered is that the enrollment at Waymarsh University is more than twice that at Sophia College. But the claim is groundless and questionable. Because the author does not supply sufficient statistics to establish a positive causal relationship between the enrollment and the money collected from alumni, it is hard to say the total amount of money donated by the alumni will rise with the number of enrollment proportionally. In sum, the argument is weak. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to exclude other explanations for the increasing total amount of donated money, prove that the method working for Sophia College will surely work for Waymarsh University, and establish a general causal relationship between the enrollment and the total money between the alumni. 我下周要考试了，这里先谢谢版主的答复
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-7-23 13:14:00
